Consultant Report:

Redistricting Alternatives for the

City of Fort Lauderdale
March 25, 2022

John Scott Dailey Florida Institute of Government

Florida Atlantic University

Steven C. Bourassa, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

James Gammack-Clark, M.A., Ph.D. candidate (ABD)

Senior Instructor, Department of Geosciences

Ronald R. Schultz, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus, Department of Geosciences

Michael Stamm, Jr., MURP

Adjunct Faculty, Department of Urban and Regional Planning

Note: This revision corrects a labeling error in the Option 3 Existing vs. Alternative Districts Map.
Introduction

The City of Fort Lauderdale contracted with Florida Atlantic University (FAU) to conduct an analysis of
their City Commission election districts. The contract outlines a process that has two main components:
(1) a population analysis of the current election districts and recommendation for redistricting and (2) the
creation of redistricting options for the City.

This report transmits an analysis of the 2020 U.S. Census apportionment dataset, adjusted for
development that has occurred since April 1st of 2020 (Census Day) and for future growth to the year
2023, as it relates to the existing City Commission election districts. These data were used to analyze the
population balance among the districts to determine whether they have fallen out of alignment, and, if
so, to what extent. We provide four redistricting alternatives, each of which improves population balance
substantially.

The 2020 Census

There are two primary differences that make the 2020 U.S. Census stand out from those that preceded it:
a significant delay in its release due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the implementation of a brand new
‘differential privacy’ policy. We will briefly address both here for clarity and context.

The decennial census aims to capture a snapshot in time of the population of the United States of America.
Understanding that the population is constantly changing, with births, deaths, and migration patterns
constantly adjusting the fabric of the American people, Census Day represents a single moment in time
for which the U.S. population is enumerated with the greatest precision possible. This day is always April
1st. By this date, every household in America received an invitation to participate in the 2020 census, with
three options to respond: online, by mail, or by phone. The 2020 census was the first to include an online
response option. After this day is a period during which the U.S. Census Bureau follows up with non-
responders and begins a quality control process. Traditionally, the Census Bureau would deliver an
apportionment count to the U.S. President on December 31st, followed by a distribution of redistricting
data to the states exactly one year to the day after Census Day: in this case, April 1, 2021.

However, due to complications caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Census Bureau sought statutory
relief from Congress that would allow for apportionment counts to be delivered to the President by April

Page 1 of 21
30, 2021, and redistricting data to be delivered to the states no later than September 30, 2021.
Additionally, the Census Bureau compressed the typical three-month nonresponse follow up enumeration
period to two and half months. Ultimately, redistricting data was released in a ‘legacy format’ on August
12, 2021. This delay complicated redistricting efforts for every electoral district in the nation. It also meant
that the amount of error in the data, inherent to every census, would likely be greater in the 2020 census.
The Census Bureau has since confirmed that the rate of missing information was higher in the 2020 census
than in the 2010 census. However, they have also stated that this rate was lower than they initially feared.

The 2020 redistricting data is also the first to employ ‘differential privacy protection’. This represents the
Census Bureau’s introduction of ‘noise’ into the data at the more local geographic scale (blocks and block
groups) with the intent to strike a balance between data protection and precision. The effect is that while
the enumeration counts can be trusted at the census tract level, we must anticipate a certain degree of
‘fuzziness’ at the block level. Specifically, while the aggregate count of population for a census tract will
be accurate, a certain proportion of people and housing units will have been deliberately misallocated by
the Census Bureau at the block level. While this may not be problematic in the realignment of
Congressional Districts, for example, it certainly represents a challenge for Municipal Districts, for which
the geographic precision of census blocks is highly desirable.

Taken together, therefore, the complications related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation
of ‘differential privacy’ introduce a certain amount of additional uncertainty to the primary source of data
for this analysis (2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171)) that is unprecedented. Nevertheless, this
data remains the basis upon which municipal redistricting efforts take place across the nation.

Current Districts

An Evaluation of Future Growth

To ensure that our recommended alternatives for redistricting reflect the most up-to-date information
about population growth, they are based on projections to the beginning of 2023. City staff identified
developments that were not included or only partially included in the April 1, 2020, Census counts but are
now occupied or expected to be constructed and occupied by 2023. These include a mixture of multi-
family and single-family homes. Population projections were established for these projects by multiplying
the number of units by the Persons Per Household (PPH) value established by the U.S. Census for the City

Page 2 of 21
Table 1 – City of Fort Lauderdale Population Estimates for Developments
Completed Since April 1st, 2020/Scheduled for Completion by January 2023

Page 3 of 21
of Fort Lauderdale (based on 2015-2019 American Community Survey data): 2.37 (with the result rounded
to the nearest whole number). Additionally, two Assisted Living Facilities were identified. In their case,
the anticipated population of both developments was provided. A summary of these units and their
population projections are listed in Table 1 above. (Note: In the case of the permit level projects,
population projections were made at the census block level. Rounding error will thus produce a slight
discrepancy in the population column if the reader attempts to multiply the total units for all these
projects by the PPH value, rather than summing the projected population for each block, as was done in
this case.) In total, 11,955 people will be added to the city’s total population count, with the majority
(8,405) being allotted to District 4, and much of the remainder added to Districts 2 and 3. The relative lack
of development in District 1 suggests that it is likely to be falling behind in its share of the city’s population,
and that it may have to expand to compensate. After submission of the District Analysis report, the
number of units and subsequent population was reduced based on updates from city staff. Table 1 reflects
the amended growth estimate.

An Evaluation of the Existing Districts

Accounting for this anticipated growth, the 2023 projected population for the City of Fort Lauderdale will
be 194,715. Dividing by four puts the projected average population for each district at 48,679. The Existing
Districts Map and Table 2 show the geographic boundaries and projected population counts for the
current districts. The district with the greatest projected population is District 4 with 60,364 residents; the
district with the smallest projected population is District 1 with 42,614 residents. District 2, with a
projected population of 49,765, is closest to the ideal district size.

The data show that the current districts are heavily unbalanced, and that the deviation is sufficient to
warrant redistricting. District 4 will account for the greatest portion of the city’s population at 29.01%.
This deviates from the theoretical average population of 48,679 by 16.05%. District 1, the smallest district,
will have 21.89% of the city population and deviate from the average by -12.46%. This represents a
difference of 13,877 people between the two districts, and a spread of 28.51% (12.46% + 16.05%). The
sum deviation of all districts is 36.56%, with a mean deviation of 9.14%. As such, the current population
imbalance exceeds the standard criterion for redistricting: there must be no more than a 10% deviation
between districts.

Page 4 of 21
 Table 2 – Current Council Districts – City of Fort Lauderdale
2020 Enumeration and 2023 Population Projection

The data also reveal interesting trends. As a product of the city’s rapid growth, since 2020 (at which time
the population balance was already out of alignment) the mean deviation has increased significantly (from
5.06% to 9.14%), while the spread has more than doubled (from 12.99% to 28.51%). District 4 has gained
in its relative share of population at the expense of the others, while District 2 has fallen near to the
average, and Districts 1 and 3 have fallen well below it. Should this trend of rapid growth continue, the
city may not want to wait for the next decennial census before engaging in another redistricting effort.

The overall pattern of district boundary changes needs to increase the population of Districts 1 and 3,
while reducing that of District 4. This will, of course, necessitate an adjustment of their geographic
boundaries where Districts 1 and 3 gain territory, while District 4 must contract in size. Due to the unique
geography of the city, any expansion of District 1 will have to occur at its southern border with District 2.
This will lead to a domino effect where District 2 will have to gain territory from Districts 3 and/or 4.
Additionally, where possible, improvements in population balance, compactness, and contiguity will be
sought for each of the districts.

Page 5 of 21
Redistricting Criteria and Data Sources

To conduct the City’s redistricting process, the consultant will abide by the following standards by which
rational districts are developed nationwide and which are supported by case law and practice throughout
the nation. These criteria can be summarized as follows:

1) Reasonable population equality across districts:

o Districts should have approximately the same number of people when all persons,
regardless of age, are counted. Ideal district size is based on the total population divided by
the number of districts.
o Redistricting should adhere to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and
interpreted through case law. This criterion requires that minority population clusters be
respected in the development of district boundaries. Arbitrary dilution and other
discriminatory practices are prohibited.
o Redistricting should adhere to Florida’s Fair Districting Amendment.
o Although deviations should be avoided wherever possible, there must be no more than a
10% overall deviation from the ideal size across districts.
2) Geographic contiguity and appropriate compactness:
o Major natural and manmade boundaries should be followed to the extent possible in
defining boundaries of voting districts.
o The integrity of communities of interest should be maintained based on race, life cycle/age,
income, and other community identity characteristics such as subdivisions.
o The degree of change in pre-existing patterns of districts should be minimized, to promote
continuity of citizen identification with a district.
o District compactness and spatial contiguity should be maintained. A compact shape for each
district will be sought in each redistricting option presented to the city.

The first criterion is of primary importance; the second is significant in guiding decisions in reaching
reasonable population balance. These criteria are consistent with the City of Fort Lauderdale charter:

Page 7 of 21
The City Charter

Not later than April 1, 1987 the city commission shall, by ordinance, adopt, create and

establish four (4) separate and distinct geographical commission districts. Except as is

provided herein for noncontiguous parcels, the four (4) districts to be created and established

by the city commission shall be of contiguous territory and as approximately equal in

population as is practicable. If there are parcels of land which are within the corporate limits

of and which are part of the City of Fort Lauderdale, but which parcels are not contiguous to

any other parcel or tract of land which is within the corporate limits of the City of Fort

Lauderdale, then such noncontiguous parcel(s) shall either be made part of one (1) of

the districts to be created as provided for herein or if such parcel(s) has a population

approximately equal to the other commission districts to be created, then such parcel(s) may

be a commission districts. In creating and establishing the four (4) city commission districts,

the city commission shall use the most recent United States Census data to determine

population figures. After the receipt of the published information of each decennial census,

the city commission shall reestablish the boundaries of the four (4) commission districts so

that the districts shall be as approximately equal in population as is practicable.

In developing revised Fort Lauderdale City Commission election districts, the spatial units used in
composing or building the districts are residential housing subdivisions (communities) and U.S. Census
blocks. Subdivisions are typically homogeneous in their housing characteristics and thus serve households
with broadly similar interests. Therefore, district borders are typically subdivision boundaries and
associated major roadways or other obvious physical features. U.S. Census blocks are typically subunits in
subdivisions and are the smallest spatial unit used in tabulating Census data.

Page 8 of 21
Alternatives

Given the necessity for redistricting based on growth within the City, three map alternatives have been
developed and are transmitted herein for review and discussion. In our opinion, all three alternatives
meet standard districting guidelines and the requirements of the City Charter. They represent alternative
ways to better balance district populations, while also keeping with the intent of the other identified
guidelines. The districts’ projected population figures and existing boundaries are used as the primary
reference in discussing the changes in each of the map alternatives. The FAU redistricting team received
comments regarding the redistricting process, population numbers, and creation of map alternatives
during a City Commission Conference Meeting held on March 15, 2022, and a public meeting held on
March 17, 2022.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 presents a revised district plan with a focus on improving overall population balance as well
as compactness. This Alternative has an impact on the geography of all four election districts. The impact
of these modifications on the City Commission districts’ 2023 projected populations and geographic
boundaries is reflected in Table 3, the Alternative 1 Map, and the Existing vs Alternative 1 Comparison
Map.

Table 3 – Alternative Districts 1 – City of Fort Lauderdale

2020 Enumeration and 2023 Population Projection

Alternative 1 provides the lowest total deviation (1.78%) and average deviation (0.44%) of the three map
alternatives. The option has a spread of 1.45% (0.89 + 0.56) when examining the gap between the smallest
and largest districts. In addition to improving the population imbalance, when compared to the existing
districts, this map alternative also achieves improved compactness. District 2 is the largest with a
population of 49,111, which is 432 above the average of 48,679. District 3 is the smallest with 48,407

Page 9 of 21
people, which is 272 below the ideal district size.

Description of changes by district for Alternative 1

District 1

District 1 gains population from District 2 by obtaining the area west of Federal Highway or the Middle
River to Powerline Road and north of NW and NE 13th Street up to the municipal boundary. It also gains
the small area south of NE 13th Street, east of Federal Highway, north of Sunrise Boulevard, and west of
the Middle River. To offset the population expansion to the west and to improve compactness, District 1
loses to District 2 the area south of Sunrise Boulevard as well as the area north of Oakland Park Boulevard
and east of the Intracoastal Waterway along the coast.

District 2

In addition to exchanging territory with District 1 as mentioned above, District 2 gains from District 4 the
area between of Broward Boulevard and the New River, with the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway to the
west and Las Olas Isles to the east (each of the four options includes this change). District 2 also gains that
part of District 4 that is east of the Intracoastal Waterway. District 2 loses to District 3 the area west of
the Railway between NE 13th Street to the north and Broward Boulevard to the South. District 2 loses to
District 4 the Sailboat Bend area west of the Railway between Broward Boulevard and the New River (each
of the four options also includes this change).

District 3

District 3 gains territory from District 2 as described above. It also loses its territory south of Davie
Boulevard to District 4.

District 4

As noted above, District 4 loses two areas: the territory east of the Intracoastal Waterway and the territory
north of the New River and east of the Railway. It gains two areas: the Sailboat Bend territory north of the
New River, south of Broward Boulevard, and west of the Railway and the territory south of Davie
Boulevard that was formerly in District 3.

Page 10 of 21
Alternative 2

Alternative 2 presents a revised district plan with a focus on improving overall population balance. This
Alternative has an impact on the geography of all four election districts. The impact of these modifications
on the City Commission districts’ 2023 projected populations and geographic boundaries is reflected in
Table 4, the Alternative 2 Map, and the Existing vs Alternative 2 Comparison Map.

Table 4 – Alternative Districts 2 – City of Fort Lauderdale

2020 Enumeration and 2023 Population Projection

Alternative 2 provides a total deviation of 2.28%, a spread of 1.7% (0.99 + 0.71), and average deviation of
0.57%. In addition to improving the population imbalance, when compared to the existing districts, this
map alternative also achieves improved compactness. District 2 is the largest with a population of 49,024,
which is 345 above the average of 48,679. District 1 is the smallest with 48,198 people, which is 481 below
the ideal district size.

Description of changes by district for Alternative 2

District 1

District 1 gains territory from District 2 by expanding west from Federal Highway or the Middle River to
Powerline Road (north of NW 15th Street) or Andrews Avenue (south of NW 15th Street). The southern
boundaries of this new territory are Sunrise Boulevard (between Andrews Avenue and the Middle River)
and NW 15th Street (between Powerline Road and Andrews Avenue). District 1 loses territory to District
2 east of the Intracoastal Waterway and north of Oakland Park Boulevard (as in Alternative 1), south of
Sunrise Boulevard (also as in Alternative 1), and between Bayview Drive and the Intracoastal Waterway
south of Oakland Park Drive and north of Sunrise Boulevard.

Page 11 of 21
District 2

In addition to the shift of territory between District 1 and District 2 described above, District 2 gains and
loses territory in the area between Broward Boulevard and the New River (as in the other alternatives). It
also gains the part of District 4 that is east of the Intracoastal Waterway (as in Alternatives 1 and 4). It
loses to District 3 the area west of the FEC Railway or Andrews Avenue (whichever is further west), south
of NW 15th Street, and north of Broward Boulevard.

District 3

District 3 gains territory from District 2 as noted above. Also, as in Alternatives 1 and 4, District 3 loses to
District 4 the territory south of Davie Boulevard.

District 4

The changes to District 4 in Alternative 2 are the same as in Alternative 1.

Page 12 of 21
Alternative 3

Alternative 3 presents a revised district plan with a strict focus on improving overall population balance.
This Alternative has an impact on the geography of all four election districts. The impact of these
modifications on the City Commission districts’ 2023 projected populations and geographic boundaries is
reflected in Table 5, the Alternative 3 Map, and the Existing vs Alternative 3 Comparison Map.

Table 5 – Alternative Districts 3 – City of Fort Lauderdale

2020 Enumeration and 2023 Population Projection

Alternative 3 provides a total deviation of 1.78% and average deviation of 0.50%. The spread between the
largest and smallest districts is the lowest of the three options at 1.19% (0.59 + 0.60). District 3 is the
largest with a population of 48,964, which is 285 above the average of 48,679. District 4 is the smallest
with 48,386 people, which is 293 below the ideal district size.

Description of changes by district for Alternative 3

District 1

In Alternative 3, District 1 gains territory by expanding to the east, gaining from District 2 the area south
of Oakland Park Boulevard, and east of the Intracoastal Waterway south to Las Olas Boulevard. District 1
gives up the area west and south of the Middle River, east of Federal Highway, and north of the westerly
extension of NE 14th Street.

District 2

District 2 loses territory to District 3 in the area west of the FEC Railway or Andrews Avenue (whichever is
further west), south of Sunrise Boulevard, and north of Broward Boulevard.

Page 13 of 21
District 3

District 3 gains territory from District 2 as noted above.

District 4

District 4 swaps territory with District 2 in the area south of Broward Boulevard and north of the New
River as in the other alternatives.

Page 14 of 21
Alternative 4

Alternative 4 presents a revised district plan with a focus on improving overall population balance while
also making the districts more compact. This Alternative has an impact on the geography of all four
election districts. The impact of these modifications on the City Commission districts’ 2023 projected
populations and geographic boundaries is reflected in Table 6, the Alternative 4 Map, and the Existing vs
Alternative 4 Comparison Map.

Table 6 – Alternative Districts 4 – City of Fort Lauderdale

2020 Enumeration and 2023 Population Projection

Alternative 4 provides a total deviation of 5.16% and average deviation of 1.29%. The spread between the
largest and smallest districts is 4.45% (1.87 + 2.58). District 1 is the largest with a population of 49,935,
which is 1,256 above the average of 48,679. District 2 is the smallest with 47,768 people, which is 911
below the ideal district size.

Description of changes by district for Alternative 4

District 1

Alternative 4 is a modification of Alternative 1. In contrast to Alternative 1, Alternative 4 retains the

beachfront section of District 1 in that district and compensates for that by shifting the area south of
Oakland Park Boulevard and east of Bayview Drive to District 2. Also, the small area south of NE 14th
Street and its westerly extension between Federal Highway and Bayview Drive shifts from District 1 to
District 2.

District 2

District 2 swaps territory with District 1 as described above. The other changes to District 2 are the same
as in Alternatives 1 and 4.

Page 15 of 21
District 3

District 3 gains territory from District 2 and loses territory to District 4 as in Alternative 1.

District 4

District 4 swaps territory with District 2 in the area south of Broward Boulevard and north of the New
River as in each of the other alternatives. As in Alternatives 1 and 2, District 4 loses the territory east of
the Intracoastal Waterway to District 2 and gains area from District 3 south of Davie Boulevard.

Page 16 of 21
Summary

The substantial population imbalance across Fort Lauderdale’s City Commission districts requires District
1 to expand and District 4 to contract. District 1 needs to expand at its southern edge either to the west
or to the east. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 involve expansion of District 1 to the west, while Alternative 3
involves expansion to the east. Alternatives 1 and 2 both consolidate all beachfront in a single district,
District 2. All four alternatives include shifting of territory from District 2 to District 3 and rearrangement
of the area between Broward Boulevard and the New River. Alternative 3 involves the least amount of
geographic change.

The existing imbalance and the four alternative map options are compared in Table 7. All the alternatives
produce a substantial improvement in the deviation statistics, with the spread between the largest and
smallest districts reduced to less than 5% in each case. Alternative 3 affects the fewest people, while
Alternative 2 affects the most.

Table 7 – Comparison of Redistricting Alternatives – City of Fort Lauderdale

Page 17 of 21
Appendix

District Demographics

The tables below depict the demographics taken from the 2020 U.S. Census for the existing City
Commission districts and the four alternatives. Note that the columns ‘White’ through ‘Other’ sum to the
City’s population total. These categories represent the U.S. Census’ definition of race. The last two
columns (‘Hispanic or Latino’ and ‘Not Hispanic or Latino’) also sum to the City’s population total (the U.S.
Census’ classification of ethnicity). District 3, which is the sole district with a minority majority, retains
that status in all the alternatives.

Page 18 of 21
Current Commission Districts – City of Fort Lauderdale
Expanded Demographics, U.S. Census 2020

Alternative 1 Districts – City of Fort Lauderdale

Expanded Demographics, U.S. Census 2020
Alternative 2 Districts – City of Fort Lauderdale
Expanded Demographics, U.S. Census 2020

Alternative 3 Districts – City of Fort Lauderdale

Expanded Demographics, U.S. Census 2020

Page 20 of 21
Alternative 4 Districts – City of Fort Lauderdale
Expanded Demographics, U.S. Census 2020

Page 21 of 21